Forum:CT:Three-revert rule enforcement

Wookieepedia > Consensus track archive > CT:Three-revert rule enforcement

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was inconclusive: will need more discussion. (Note that administrators currently seem to be enforcing this rule in a variable fashion, using both short-term protection and short user blocks as they judge appropriate. —Silly Dan _(talk) 21:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC))

This topic concerns the application and enforcement of the three-revert rule. Although it is a current policy page (albeit barely wookified), the three-revert rule (3RR, for short) is rarely enforced here. Lately, there have been several circumstances where topic has been brought up [1] [2] [3] (and some various other edit warring), but given this policy's (so far) murky status I think it deserves a more complete discussion. Before moving to a formal vote, I think we should discuss this policy in-depth so as to analyze the situation fully. RMF 21:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Here are my thoughts on this issue: 3RR is important because it highly discourages revert warring, which is inherently harmful for the following reasons:

• Makes the page history less useful
• Wastes space in the database
• Makes it hard for other people to contribute
• Floods recent changes and watchlists

As such, I think we should start enforcing 3RR across the board. Although it may take a few warnings (and perhaps even blocks), people will quickly recognize that there is a far better approach to edit warring: discussing changes on talk/user talk pages. However, my primary goal here is to establish a consistent policy – either we enforce it, or we don't. I'm okay with either, as long as it's consistent. :) Thoughts? RMF 21:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm against enforcing it. Kuralyov 22:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• I suggest protecting the page after the third revert instead of banning people. StarNeptune^{Talk to me!} 22:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Page protection is also harmful because it blocks users from contributing to non-disputed sections of the article. Besides, which version does the admin lock? The one they agree with? 3RR is important because it encourages editors to discuss changes on talk pages, which is a far better solution than page protection. RMF 22:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with StarNeptune. I also don't think it should apply to a single user - three reverts of the same material by ANYONE should lead to a page lock and dispute resolution on the talk page. The lock should happen immediately after the third revert, so the version that is locked is the pre-edit version, whether the admin agrees with that version or not. jSarek 00:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • How about putting a {{twoversions}} template? - Sikon [Talk] 05:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not entirely sure how I feel about it...the 24 hour ban thing is nice and all, but could both make us admins appear as "admin nazi's" (to quote a former user) and is also not that great of a deterant, as users can come back after those 24 hours. However, I don't really see any other way to do it and, as we now have a place to inform admins of people going against the 3RR, I believe it's probably the only way that will work which doesn't lock pages for weeks. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 05:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I guess the 3RR is best, but we should probably warn people before they get banned. Like RMF said, page protection is harmful. -LtNOWIS 07:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • See, I don't mind being called an "admin nazi." It just means I'm doing my job well enough to make some idiot angry. I just want the 3RR enforced for situations like this: "i will not be breaking the three revert rule, because my reverts are correct." - amusing, but so very wrong. -- Darth Culator 12:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)